Letters: solar power

If we are to follow Erik Bruvold’s premise (“Solar flare-up: Rate structure should be fair, economically sustainable” Dialog, Dec. 4), then those driving fuel-efficient electric or hybrid vehicles should pay an additional surcharge to the gasoline companies and governments because they’re using less gasoline, paying less tax on gas, which creates less revenue for the roads and the “grid” infrastructure they use. Yet, the mere fact they’re using less fuel creates less demand, which increases the supply. Supply dictates price. The greater the supply the lower the price, which helps those in the lower income neighborhoods who can’t afford more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Letters and commentary policy

The U-T welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public matters. Please visit this page for more details on our letters and commentaries policy.

Maybe San Diego Gas and Electric will lower its rates as demand lessens and supply increases in the grid, providing lower rates for those with lower incomes who can’t afford solar panels. Not likely. – Craig Wood, La Mesa

There have been several articles over the past weeks regarding Sempra/SDG&E’s request to the PUC to charge solar customers a “network-use” charge claiming that “solar users currently avoid paying their fair share for the upkeep of electrical infrastructure,” to quote Morgan Lee’s article “Walmart to challenge SDG&E rate proposal” (Business reports, Dec. 1).

The argument that nobody brings up is that SDG&E is receiving excess power to their grid from solar users. That in turn is sold to other nonsolar customers for a huge margin. For example, take a nonsolar customer in the Tier 4 range (30 cents per kilowatt-hour for delivery and generation). The excess generation credit to the solar user is 4 cents per kWh, resulting in a 26 cent per kWh markup for SDG&E.

Additionally SDG&E does not have to build more power plants to meet the increasing energy demand for new customers due to solar user excess generation and/or less demand on the system. – Greg Woolsey, Alpine

In response to “County won’t oppose SDG&E solar rate plan” (Local reports, Dec. 8): It is pathetic the way SDG&E tries to play one group against another in its never-ending greed. “Company officials contend that solar customers escaped from paying their fair share” but never mention the thousands of dollars solar users were tricked into investing to install their systems in this bait-then-switch-the-rules game.

Who will pay the 250 percent increase the water district (and other agencies) will have to collect so SDG&E can receive pay raises, bonuses and benefits? Nonsolar customers will pay these higher cost along with the solar users for allowing SDG&E to pit them against their neighbors just to be “fair.”

If SDG&E really wanted to be “fair” the cost of “transporting” electricity would be based on the distance (poles, wires, etc.) from the generation point, not some made up, arbitrary cost just to line its pockets. – Denis Doran, Santee

Regarding the debate on SDG&E’s plan to establish a “network use charge” on customers who have their own solar electricity generating systems, it is obvious to me that Eric Bruvold’s arguments were inane, spurious and not well thought-out. But, if anyone needs more evidence of this, let me illustrate with just two contradictions: